Rafael de Oliveira Werneck

Keiller Nogueira, Samuel G. Fadel, Ícaro C. Dourado et al.

Flooding is the world's most costly type of natural disaster in terms of both economic losses and human causalities. A first and essential procedure towards flood monitoring is based on identifying the area most vulnerable to flooding, which gives authorities relevant regions to focus. In this work, we propose several methods to perform flooding identification in high-resolution remote sensing images using deep learning. Specifically, some proposed techniques are based upon unique networks, such as dilated and deconvolutional ones, while other was conceived to exploit diversity of distinct networks in order to extract the maximum performance of each classifier. Evaluation of the proposed algorithms were conducted in a high-resolution remote sensing dataset. Results show that the proposed algorithms outperformed several state-of-the-art baselines, providing improvements ranging from 1 to 4% in terms of the Jaccard Index.

Thierry Pinheiro Moreira, Mauricio Lisboa Perez, Rafael de Oliveira Werneck et al.

A pet that goes missing is among many people's worst fears: a moment of distraction is enough for a dog or a cat wandering off from home. Some measures help matching lost animals to their owners; but automated visual recognition is one that - although convenient, highly available, and low-cost - is surprisingly overlooked. In this paper, we inaugurate that promising avenue by pursuing face recognition for dogs. We contrast four ready-to-use human facial recognizers (EigenFaces, FisherFaces, LBPH, and a Sparse method) to two original solutions based upon convolutional neural networks: BARK (inspired in architecture-optimized networks employed for human facial recognition) and WOOF (based upon off-the-shelf OverFeat features). Human facial recognizers perform poorly for dogs (up to 60.5% accuracy), showing that dog facial recognition is not a trivial extension of human facial recognition. The convolutional network solutions work much better, with BARK attaining up to 81.1% accuracy, and WOOF, 89.4%. The tests were conducted in two datasets: Flickr-dog, with 42 dogs of two breeds (pugs and huskies); and Snoopybook, with 18 mongrel dogs.